Proletarians of All Countries, Unite!

From the coming issue of Red Sun Magazine #39


"In fact, it is no secret for anyone that two trends have taken form in present-day international Social-Democracy. The conflict between these trends now flares up in a bright flame and now dies down and smoulders under the ashes of imposing “truce resolutions”. The essence of the “new” trend, which adopts a “critical” attitude towards “obsolete dogmatic” Marxism, has been clearly enough presented by Bernstein and demonstrated by Millerand.

Social-Democracy must change from a party of social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms. Bernstein has surrounded this political demand with a whole battery of well-attuned “new” arguments and reasonings. Denied was the possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of demonstrating its necessity and inevitability from the point of view of the materialist conception of history. Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions; the very concept, “ultimate aim”, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat was completely rejected. Denied was the antithesis in principle between liberalism and socialism. Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc. "

(V.I. Lenin - What Is To Be Done?, 1902)

Today the International Communist Movement (ICM) finds itself in a situation of dispersal. We see how the blows of imperialism, reaction and revisionism against the forces of the world proletarian revolution have been successful in the short-term in their attempt to strip the ICM of its principles and guidance, to spread division; concretely, in that sense we see the treason of the ROL and the LOL in Peru, under the direct leadership of, and in collaboration with Yankee imperialism, and its equivalent in Nepal, where the revisionist traitors, having full control of the party, have capitulated and sold out the revolution for a mess of pottage. But the main aspect of this situation in the ICM is not the attacks of the enemy. It's not that the enemy is so powerful, as some say, or that the masses do not want revolution, as others say. No, the main problem, the root, of the dispersal in the ICM, is the rightism in its own ranks; revisionism and opportunism, today behind the mask of a so-called “Maoism”, that is what we call the new revisionism—a bourgeois line the essence of which is capitulation before imperialism and reaction and the negation of Marxism. As always, the right insists that the dispersal is the product of “dogmatism” and “errors” supposedly committed by the communists and revolutionaries, while we communists, as always, insist on reaching unity by upholding, defending and applying the principles of the universal ideology of the proletariat, today Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, principally Maoism, for staying the course of the revolution until Communism. That is to say, the struggle to unite the ICM, aiming at the new Communist International whose nucleus be led by the Parties that lead people's war, is fundamentally a struggle to impose Maoism as the sole command and guide of the world proletarian revolution, and the reactionary task assigned to the revisionists is to attack, revise, neutralize and tame Maoism with the dark and impossible aim of crushing it. As we already know, the RCP of the USA and its head Bob Avakian, since the inception of the RIM, has been opposed to the struggle for Maoism in different ways, while some others have taken a vacillating and ambiguous position.

Part of the problem of the current situation is that while almost all of the Parties and organizations express their opposition to Avakian’s new revisionism and to capitulation, they only do it in very general terms, they avoid taking position on specific points, and they even express positions that converge with new revisionism and the capitulators. That is why we insist that, in order to develop the two-line struggle necessary to unite the communists on a world level, each one has to take a clear and firm position. Upholding, defending and applying Maoism does not mean upholding and defending a word, a mere symbol, while in practice applying pragmatism or opportunism. Maoism consists of the principles that are a product of the entire concrete experience of the proletariat and the ICM, and when we struggle against new revisionism, which wants to revise these principles, we have to specify: How does the revisionism that we are criticizing take expression? Where does it come from and where does it lead? Some comrades think that “we do not have to deepen the ideological struggle, we do not have to center so much on principles and labels, that only leads to dividing us, we have to dedicate ourselves to the practice and unite.” What these comrades do not understand, or do not want to understand, is that revolutionary practice cannot be separated from theory, from the historical experiences and our position on them. If someone mechanically defends obsolete policies with the goal of escaping the task of making revolution, or to pursue a career in revisionist organizations, that is, indeed, dogmatism. But when the communists are steadfast in defending the principles of the proletarian revolution, products of the practice of class struggle, because these are the principles that guarantee the initiation and course of the revolution until Communism, this is not dogmatism, but Marxism.

A year ago the RCP of the USA published a document (Letter to Participating Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, May 2012) where they synthesize their position regarding the current situation and the struggle inside the ICM. They do so in ambiguous, imprecise and pretentious words, in an attempt to hide the bourgeois essence of their position, and it is clear that the motive behind the document is to 1) address the intellectuals of the ICM, appealing to their petty bourgeois origins, calling upon their right and their fear of the proletarian revolution and 2) address the new comrades who do not know the history of the ICM and RIM well, so as to be able to revise history. It is the duty of the communists to take a position on these points, and even more so when they see positions converging with them taking expression among our ranks on a world level. Here we will look at some of the central points in the above-mentioned document, not because the RCP and Avakian in themselves are very important, but because they want to become and be recognized as the head of the new revisionism, and because these are points that are central in new revisionism as a whole, and they are expressed not only in the RCP but in several Parties and organizations on a world level.


Idealism Instead of Materialism

According to Avakian, Maoism “is dividing in two”, and it is true. In fact, the ICM is dividing in two: on one side the communists, who are for continuing and developing the road of the glorious International Communist Movement, and on the other side the revisionists, who are for breaking with this road, who repeat, in different words, the hoax of imperialism and reaction that “communism has failed” and all the other lies and attacks from the exploiting classes. According to Avakian and his followers, the history of the ICM and all the practice of the communists and of the socialist countries, are full of “errors” so grave that it is necessary to break with this communist legacy and start anew. But note that according to this “new vision” the supposed grave “errors” are not due to rightism, to bourgeois positions, not related to the concrete conditions of the class struggle, but have their origins in errors of Marxism itself, in theoretical “errors” committed by the communists, by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc., who have applied the ideology to concrete reality and so have diverted from a supposed Marxism that is pure, perfect and of high morality. This is the idealism of Avakian, and it is expressed in all of his analysis of the world revolution: for him, everything good comes from the heads of great geniuses, and everything bad comes from the errors committed by the communists, combatants and masses who have applied the theory in practice.

Consequently, for them the formation of the RIM in 1984 and its declarations were not products of the development of the revolution, of the application of Maoism in practice—like the initiation (1980) and development of the People's War in Peru—but the reverse:

"The formation of RIM gave heart and orientation to revolutionary communists all over the world. The RIM went into a political and ideological battle united and basing itself on what was, at that time, an advanced understanding reflected in the Declaration. With this basic foundation uniting them, comrades from different countries engaged in revolutionary communist practice in accordance with the strategy and stage of development of the revolutionary process in their particular countries. In some instances, in accordance with the basic character of the country and the concrete conditions, most notably in Peru and Nepal, comrades were able to make real breakthroughs in leading masses in people's war." (Letter to Participating Parties and Organizations of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, Revolutionary Communist Party, United States, May 2012).

Our position on the matter is in the International Line of the PCP:
In the Fall of 1980, 13 Communist parties and organizations signed a declaration, “To the Marxist-Leninists, Workers, and the Oppressed of All Countries,” calling upon the Communists to unite around Marxism-Leninism and they took up Chairman Mao, but without considering Maoism as a new stage with universal validity.  This work was led principally by the Revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S.A.  In 1983 the RCP-USA contacted the PCP and invited it to sign the 1980 statement.  The PCP did not agree to such a statement since Mao Tse-tung Thought was not considered therein; furthermore, we were already basing ourselves on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.  In March 1984, the Second Conference of these organizations was held, in which it was agreed to form the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) and they approved a joint declaration in which they talk of uniting around Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought.  Our position on the incorporation of the PCP within RIM is condensed in a letter written to the Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement dated October 1986: “We wish to reiterate two questions about this point.  First, from the beginning of our ties, the starting point of our differences was around the substantial and decisive question of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the sole, true and new stage in the development of the proletarian ideology of universal validity, and principally of Maoism as the key question; consequently, our disagreement with the expression ‘Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought.’  Nevertheless, we have thought and think that the solution of this matter which for us is indispensable as starting point, is complex and demands time and, especially, developing the revolution.”

For the RCP, on the other hand, all the successes were achieved thanks to the "advanced understanding" of the RIM leaders. But not the problems. The bad, once again, comes from the communists who are on the battlefield:

"But comrades in different countries encountered serious obstacles as well, and in some places the revolutionary process was reversed or stagnated, which has had an impact on RIM as a whole."(ibid.)

In fact, the whole document, and Avakian’s whole “new synthesis” is characterized not by historical and dialectical materialism, but by idealism and metaphysics. In his analysis of any problem, he always reaches the idealist conclusion, that every solution and every problem have their origin in the realm of ideas, not in the practice of the class struggle:

"Most fundamentally, things have come to an impasse not because of the obstruction of one or another party, or the inactivity of the CoRIM [Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement] in the face of the acute differences over line, nor even fundamentally because of the very real betrayal of the revolution in Nepal with all of its negative fallout (about which we will have more to say below). Rather, the crisis of RIM and the international communist movement more generally arose because the understanding on which the movement was based –what we have called Marxism-Leninism-Maoism - is 'dividing into two'"(ibid.)

Genius! What this gentleman has discovered, then, is that the reason why the ICM is dividing into two—is because it is dividing into two! The class position of the traitors in Nepal, the emergence of the ROL in Peru, its connection to the plans of imperialism and reaction, the policy of a party on bourgeois parliamentarism and “peace talks” and the complete incapacity of the CoRIM to take a firm position and give correct guidance to the movement—these factors for Avakian are mere unimportant details. Of course, in their analysis of the struggle in the RIM, they do not mention the position taken by the RCP facing the hoax of the “peace accords”, i.e. the fact that they did not assume and defend the declaration of the Central Committee of the PCP, which correctly unmasked the hoax as a reactionary plan led by Yankee imperialism, but instead dedicated themselves to making “investigations” and making room for the so-called “self-criticisms” and declarations made by the capitulators together with the reaction in the prisons, in that way contributing to the plan of the enemy. They do not even  mention that they applied the same policy of “waiting” and “investigating” in regards to the “peace accords” in Nepal, and that while the PCP had struggled against these revisionist positions in a series of meetings since around 2001, the RCP (and the CoRIM) kept silent until 2009, when the treason was already an undeniable fact, and they even say that the revisionist line in Nepal did not take control of the party until 2005.

Consequently, when they declare that the world proletarian revolution has reached a “new stage”, which supposedly explains the need to get rid of Maoism and take up the “new synthesis”, they cannot specify what this “new stage” consists of. What are the decisive changes in the practice of class struggle, in the correlation of forces in the world that characterize this “new stage”? No, for Avakian, what is essential to the “new stage” is that he himself has “discovered” the so-called “errors” of Marxism and the ICM, not through his experience of applying Marxism in practice, but simply through his own revelations. These revelations are, in reality, no more than echoes of the anti-communist propaganda of reaction and attempts to adapt Marxism to the rotten, decrepit and hypocritical principles of the bourgeoisie: of “objective science” above the classes, of “democracy” and “liberty” above the classes, of “morality” above the classes, etc.

According to Avakian, “There is a real need for a scientific examination of all this experience [of the world proletarian revolution]”. Of course, but if we are dialectical materialists, this is done in practice, applying the experience of the class and the ICM, as it is synthesized in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist theory, to the practice of each revolution. The “evaluation” is made by communists in the midst of the class struggle, leading the masses, initiating and developing people's war, not by intellectualoids isolated in their library. The RCP continues on ridiculously: “In truth, there has been far too little examination of the real obstacles and contradictions in the process of making revolution” There has been far too little analysis? So, the classics of Marxism, all the texts of Marx, Lenin, and Chairman Mao, and the documents of the Communist Party of Peru and others: What are they? Are they not examinations of the 'real obstacles and contradictions in the process of making revolution', based on the concrete practice of making revolution? No, for Avakian they cannot be trusted, because they are contaminated by the revolutionary practice, dirty, complex and bloody. In reality, Avakian looks down on the communists and revolutionaries, who have to make difficult decisions, test the theories in war and in the complex situations of the class struggle, “crossing the river of blood”, as Chairman Gonzalo says. To Avakian, “scientific” means “impartial”, without class position and removed from practice, and consequently, the greatest theoretician is the one who does nothing (and below we can understand better why the RCP does not lead, nor participate in any of the struggles of the proletariat of the United States). As the Great Lenin said: only he who never does anything never makes mistakes”.


The “New Synthesis” -- More Scientific, Or More Bourgeois?

"In terms of philosophy and method, this new synthesis is, in a meaningful sense, regrounding Marxism more fully in its scientific roots." Avakian says. But what does “scientific” mean to him? As we already know, it is not the first time that bourgeois intellectuals and scientists try to negate Marxism with the argument that “it is not scientific”, Popper being one of the most famous. It is clear, then, that “scientific” means one thing to the bourgeoisie, and another thing to us. What it means to us is masterfully synthesized by Chairman Mao:

"What actually happens is that man's knowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in the process of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientific experiment). [...] The Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature: it openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality: it emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice, emphasizes that theory is based on practice and in turn serves practice. The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective results in social practice. Only social practice can be the criterion of truth. The standpoint of practice is the primary and basic standpoint in the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge." (Chairman Mao Tse-tung - On Practice) [our emphasis added]

Accordingly, for us Marxists, if we want to demonstrate if a theory is scientific or not we have to see the relations between the theory and the concrete reality. We have to show and analyze with specific examples how the theory has been applied in practice and what the results have been. But for Avakian this is not necessary. For him, it is sufficient to declare that the Marxism of Marx, Lenin and Chairman Mao supposedly does not obey some supposedly “scientific” abstract principles. Vulgarly, Avakian repeats the same old song of the anti-communist and revisionist intellectuals from Bernstein all the way to Khrushchev and Teng: that Marxism, as applied by the communists, is “Hegelian”, that it is “simplistic” and “mechanical”, and that its determinism—that is to say, the truth demonstrated by Marx of the inevitability of the defeat of capitalism and the realization of the society without classes, communism—is “fatalist” and “religious”. Just like his predecessor, Trotsky, Avakian wants to undermine the authority of the leaders of the proletariat at all costs. Like Trotsky said on the 90th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto: “The Manifesto, too, requires corrections and additions”, because “revolutionary thought has nothing in common with idol-worship”.

So, for example, when it comes to determinism, because he cannot refute the Marxist truth, Avakian resorts, once again, to nonsense. The Marxist thesis that society, just like nature, moves according to laws, and that knowing these laws, the human being can deduce scientifically that a certain process will inevitably lead to a certain stage of its development—this Marxist truth, according to Avakian, is “teleological”, that is, the idea that “there is some kind of will or purpose with which nature, or history, is endowed”. In this way Avakian, without even trying to refute this truth with scientific arguments, can reach the conclusion he wants: that “Marxism is religion”--a recurring phrase in the anti-communist propaganda. Avakian says “regrounding Marxism in its scientific roots", but in reality he negates "the possibility of putting Socialism on a scientific basis and of proving from the point of view of the materialist conception of history that it is necessary and inevitable" (Lenin), and unites with Hoxha, Wang Ming and Khrushchev, who accused Chairman Mao Tsetung of being “nationalist”, “idealist” and of having a “peasant mentality”.

The following quote of the great Lenin clearly shows that the “new synthesis” of Avakian is not so new, but belongs to an old tradition of bourgeois theorists dedicated to “refuting” Marxism:

"...the idea of the conflict between determinism and morality, between historical necessity and the significance of the individual. He [Mikhailovsky] has filled reams of paper on the subject and has uttered an infinite amount of sentimental, philistine nonsense in order to settle this conflict in favour of morality and the role of the individual. Actually, there is no conflict here at all; it has been invented by Mr. Mikhailovsky, who feared (not without reason) that determinism would cut the ground from under the philistine morality he loves so dearly. The idea of determinism, which postulates that human acts are necessitated and rejects the absurd tale about free will, in no way destroys man's reason or conscience, or appraisal of his actions. Quite the contrary, only the determinist view makes a strict and correct appraisal possible instead of attributing everything you please to free will. Similarly, the idea of historical necessity does not in the least undermine the role of the individual in history: all history is made up of the actions of individuals, who are undoubtedly active figures. (Lenin - WHAT THE "FRIENDS OF THE PEOPLE" ARE AND HOW THEY FIGHT THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS, 1894)

(With respect to Marxist determinism, refer also to the article of Mariátegui published in this issue of Red Sun).

Avakian, just like hundreds of other revisionists, obscurely accuse us of being “religious” and “idealists”, because we do not conciliate with his idea of a so-called “scientific” Marxism in the bourgeois sense, a cold Marxism, of beings who live in Plato's Hyperuranion, without feelings, without deep roots among the masses and without an inevitable final goal. The bourgeois intellectuals fear the exploited and oppressed masses armed with the force of a faith, as Mariátegui says: "The masses demand unity. The masses want faith. And, therefore, their soul rejects the corrosive, solvent and pessimist voice of those who negate and those who doubt, and look for the optimistic, cordial, youthful and prolific voice of those who affirm and those who believe.” (J.C. Mariátegui – The First of May and the United Front). And Marxism is, indeed, a faith, but it is not the idealistic and metaphysical faith in supernatural forces, used by the exploiting classes to sustain their rule, but the faith in the unstoppable force of the working masses themselves and their ability to transform the world. We reaffirm the Marxist, dialectical and materialist position of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, and we see that Avakian and the other bourgeois intellectuals have much in common with the "Wise Old Man":

"Having refuted the Wise Old Man's wrong view, he went on digging every day, unshaken in his conviction. God was moved by this, and he sent down two angels, who carried the mountains away on their backs. Today, two big mountains lie like a dead weight on the Chinese people. One is imperialism, the other is feudalism. The Chinese Communist Party has long made up its mind to dig them up. We must persevere and work unceasingly, and we, too, will touch God's heart. Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can't these two mountains be cleared away?" (Mao Tse-tung - THE FOOLISH OLD MAN WHO REMOVED THE MOUNTAINS)


Proletarian Internationalism or Bourgeois Internationalism?

According to Avakian, in the ICM there exists a "tendency toward nationalism—toward separating off the revolutionary struggle in a particular country from, and even raising it above, the overall world revolutionary struggle for communism". So, once again, Avakian distinguishes himself as a successor of Trotsky, who attacked and conspired against the Soviet Union with similar arguments: that socialism cannot be built in one country, that one must wait until there are revolutions in the other countries. In his supposed criticism of “nationalist tendencies” Avakian and the RCP do not mention any concrete example, he does not talk about the errors that have indeed been committed in some cases (the 'baton' policy, or 'exporting revolution', etc.) because his intention is not to “evaluate”, but, rather, to question, attack and “break” with the proletarian revolution itself. Avakian, like all the propagandists of the general counterrevolutionary offensive, mix together the nationalist chauvinism of the imperialists with the defense of the fatherland carried out by the oppressed peoples of the Third World and the defense of the fatherland in a socialist country. In reality, with his “criticism” of “nationalist tendencies”, Avakian aims against all the Parties and organizations that do not accept the hegemonism of the RCP and against those who are for applying Maoism to the concrete conditions of the revolution in their countries. Comrade Stalin, unmasking the revisionism of Trotsky, said that for Trotsky "there is but one prospect left for our revolution: to vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution". This is a description that corresponds well to the politics of the RCP.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Class Truth and Bourgeois “Objectivity”

"That is our fighting slogan, that is our proletarian truth, the truth of the struggle against capital, the truth which we flung in the face of the world of capital with its honeyed, hypocritical, pompous phrases about freedom and equality in general, about freedom and equality for all." (V.I. Lenin - Soviet Power and the Status of Women, 1919)

"All observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service" (Charles Darwin)

Avakian, once again in conformity with all the propaganda of the general counterrevolutionary offensive headed by Yankee imperialism, continues with his attack against the dictatorship of the proletariat. Although he says that he defends it, in reality he attacks it, aiming to strip it of its class character and introducing to it the principles of bourgeois liberalism.

"Bob Avakian has recognized and emphasized the need for a greater role for dissent, a greater fostering of intellectual ferment, and more scope for initiative and creativity in the arts in socialist society."

We can see that the RCP does not want to soil their revelations with examples from concrete reality, from practice, but prefer to speak in the abstract, in generalities, insinuating things without saying them openly. How has the “intellectual ferment” been repressed in the socialist countries? How has the “scope for initiative and creativity in the arts" been restricted? We have a saying: "revisionism hides behind generalities". For the communists, the decisive thing is the class character of the dictatorship, the class character of the democracy, the class character of the intellectuals and their creativity. But Avakian, when he talks about “dissent” (another favorite word of the reactionary propaganda), he does not mention the class character of such “dissent”. As a matter of fact, the proletarian character of the dictatorship, which is the dictatorship of the working class over the exploiting classes, is exactly what Avakian is attacking when he criticizes "the tendency toward a 'reification of the proletariat”. And when he talks about "the important role of intellectuals", these intellectuals supposedly do not have a class character, either.

"…the notion of 'class truth,' which in fact is opposed to the scientific understanding that truth is objective, does not vary in accordance with differing class interests, and is not dependent on which class outlook one brings to the pursuit of the truth. The scientific outlook and method of communism – if it is correctly taken up and applied, as a living science and not as a dogma – provides, in an overall sense, the most consistent, systematic, and comprehensive means for arriving at the truth, but that is not the same thing as saying that truth itself has a class character, or that communists are bound to arrive at the truth with regard to particular phenomena, while people who do not apply, or who even oppose, the communist outlook and method are not capable of arriving at important truths."

In this way Avakian unites with all the leaders of the reformist and social-fascist Social-Democracy who sell out the workers, who have explicitly declared their intention to “destroy the class spirit” of Marxism and establish the society guided by “objective science”, that is to say, maintain the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In this way he unites with the Russian revisionists and their "Party of the whole people" and "State of the whole people", and with all the bourgeois intellectuals, capitalist roaders who were the target of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. According to them, the motor of the revolution and of socialist society is not class struggle, not the struggle of the proletariat to consolidate and deepen its dictatorship, but “objective science”. This, as we Marxist-Leninist-Maoists already know, in reality means bourgeois science; it means the power of the bourgeois experts, and in the context of a socialist country it means the restoration of capitalism. In short, for Avakian the requirement for being able to reach objective truth is to place it "above the classes" (which is not possible according to the materialist conception in a society divided into classes), while for us the requirement for arriving at the truth, particularly about the laws of the class struggle and revolution, is to have a firm proletarian class position. That is to say, proletarian truth is the scientific base of our ideology.

Our position, the position of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, is clear and powerful: we are for the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by its vanguard, the Communist Party, a dictatorship exercised through the proletarian State and based on the armed force of the proletariat, a proletarian dictatorship that includes true democracy for the proletariat and the people, and the dictatorship over the exploiting classes, the counterrevolutionaries and the capitalist roaders. The proletariat, in the sense of the working class, not in any abstract or diffuse sense, is the class that leads the revolution and the building of socialism united with the other classes of the people, the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie, which will necessarily be proletarized in this process. This is particularly important when it comes to the intellectuals, who inevitably have an important role in the revolution: what the revolution needs is to forge proletarian intellectuals. That is, the workers must forge themselves not only as workers, but also as Marxist intellectuals, and the intellectuals of petty bourgeois or bourgeois origin must forge themselves as proletarians. Our Party has synthesized the correct position of its founder, J.C. Mariátegui:

"We must follow that road [that of Mariátegui (editor's note)]; I am not proposing that we must be equal to him, but only that we follow his road. For instance I could make a “little prologue”. For instance, I could do something following his light on this level, and by doing so I would be an itty-bitty theoretician, but I am on his road, and if we join together all the little truths that we can reach while following the path of Mariátegui, then it would be a huge river of truth. Who has more responsibility in this? The intellectuals. But just not any intellectuals. Our motherland, its change and its development not only demand intellectuals, it demands revolutionary intellectuals. What does this mean? Mao Tse-tung is luminous and precise and very concrete when he says we must become one with the exploited masses of workers and peasants. He says that very concretely. If one wants to be a revolutionary intellectual then one must become one with the masses, work like they do, feel like they do and think like they do. But this is a process, because I have to leave behind my higher status, my suit and tie, and leave this behind in good time, if in this way I will achieve becoming a revolutionary intellectual. This is a reflection that applies to all of us, which brings us to the second part. In Mariátegui, we see a man of action. When Mariátegui assumed a task, he fulfilled it, he executed it, and when he confronted a particular problem, like his health, his family, he always put family and problems after his tasks.
Mariátegui was very consistent. He sacrificed everything for his work because he understood this, because he was a combatant. Whoever is not a combatant, is not a Marxist-Leninist." (PCP - Understanding Mariátegui)

And as far as bourgeois intellectuals go, including those who today call themselves “Marxists” or “leftists”, we unite with the position of the great Lenin:

“The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and gaining strength in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie and its henchmen, the intellectual lackeys of capital, who imagine they are the brains of the nation. Actually, they are not the brains, but shit”. (Lenin, Letter to Gorky from September 15, 1919)


The New Revisionism Objectively Serves the Plans of Imperialism and Reaction

We have here dealt with some central points of the Avakian’s “new synthesis”, and we hope that this will serve to develop the struggle in the ICM against the new revisionism as a whole. As we have pointed out, it is necessary to develop an implacable struggle not only against Avakian and his “new synthesis” itself, but also against all the positions that converge with it. These so-called “criticisms” of Marxism are nothing but repetitions of old revisionist positions and of the lies and attacks from the general counterrevolutionary offensive. What is new about them today is that they are presented as “Maoist”, when they are really attacks on Maoism. They aim to prevent Maoism from being recognized as the only command and guide of the world revolution, to prevent it from being embodied in the peoples of the world and to trap the world revolution in the swamp of revisionism and opportunism. The RCP and all the new revisionism are shown to be the most active in fulfilling the role delineated by the CIA, and in this decade the struggle against revisionism is going to sharpen. That is why the role of the PCP in setting and maintaining the course is crucial for the Peruvian revolution, and for preparing the international proletariat to confront revisionism in the midst of a new imperialist world war. This is the framework to come, and that is why Yankee imperialism tries to make capitulation take root in the revolutionary camp to maintain its position as gendarme. Yankee imperialism is losing its hegemony and needs the RCP and other revisionist parties to maintain the old system, to defend bourgeois democracy, which is to say the old State, the same as its Siamese twin in Peru, the ROL.

There are other important points to discuss in this debate, like the miserable return of the revisionist thesis of the “cult of personality” inside the communist ranks, the question of the universal validity of the people's war and other things, which we will deal with in other articles. We call upon all the Parties and organizations of the ICM to participate in this debate and develop the two-line struggle to be able to unite in revolutionary thought and action, serving the world revolution.


Documentos Home Get in contact